Albany, NY -- The state’s highest court today concluded judges across New York have unconstitutionally been denied a pay raise for more than a decade

But the Court of Appeals declined to order a salary increase, leaving the matter to be addressed by state lawmakers.

“We conclude that the independence of the judiciary is improperly jeopardized by the current judicial pay crisis and this constitutes a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine,” Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. wrote in a 35-page majority decision.

The court concluded it was improper for the issue of judicial pay hikes to be linked to pay raises for legislators or other legislative initiatives, such as campaign finance reform. Whether judges deserve a pay raise should be based on “an objective assessment of the Judiciary’s needs if it is to retain its function and structural independence,” Pigott wrote.

The judiciary should not be “used as a pawn or bargaining chip in order to achieve ends that are entirely unrelated to the judicial mission,” the judge added in noting the state’s judges rely on the good faith of the executive and legislative branches of government to provide sufficient funding.

Pigott wrote that the state cannot treat judicial compensation “as if it were merely another government program appropriation as opposed to compensation for members of a co-equal branch.”

The majority did not suggest there was any nefarious motive behind the failure to ray judicial salaries. It’s enough to note that the inaction on the issue has impaired the structural independence of the judiciary and adversely affected the public at large, Pigott added.

“It is unfortunate that this Court has been called upon to adjudicate constitutional issues relative to an underlying matter upon which all have agreed: namely, that the Judiciary is entitled to a compensation adjustment,” Pigott wrote.

”By ensuring that any judicial salary increases will be premised on their merits, this holding aims to strike the appropriate balance between preserving the independence of the Judiciary and avoiding encroachment on the budget-making authority of the Legislature,” he continued.

Pigott noted the court recognized that the issue of whether judicial pay should be raised and by how much is within the province of the Legislature. But that was followed by a blunt warning.

“It should keep in mind, however, that whether the Legislature has met its constitutional obligations in that regard is within the province of this Court,” he wrote. “We therefore expect appropriate and expeditious legislative consideration.”

Pigott was joined by four other judges in his decision. Judge Robert Smith issued a dissenting opinion disputing the majority’s conclusion that the state’s inaction on the pay raise issue was unconstitutional.

“Bad as the present situation is, neither of the disastrous conditions I have mentioned – a bench that cannot be filled with competent people, or one whose financial dependence makes it the slave of the Legislature – exists or is close to existing,” Smith wrote in rejecting the unconstitutionality argument.

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, a plaintiff in one of the three lawsuits addressed by the Court of Appeals in today’s decision, did not participate in that decision. But he is slated to address the state’s judges in a video conference this afternoon.

While railing against the lack of adequate judicial compensation, the majority concluded the questions of whether judges’ salaries are inadequate when compared to legal positions in the public and private sectors should first be addressed by the Legislature.

“We anticipate that our holding today will permit them to consider, in good faith, judicial salary increases on the merits,” Pigott wrote.

Pigott noted judges are not claiming they do not earn a living wage. Given the lack of any increases in the past 11 years, however, “judges no longer earn salaries that are appropriate given the significance of their positions in our tri-partite form of government and the role they play in ensuring the rights of all members of society,” Pigott wrote.

“Judicial salaries need not be exorbitant, but they must be sufficient to attract well-qualified individuals to serve,” he noted.